Jump to content

HM Solomon I

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About HM Solomon I

  • Birthday 08/06/1991

Previous Fields

  • Sanctioned Alliance
    New Pacific Order
  • Nation Name
    Kingdom of the Truth
  • Alliance Name
    New Pacific Order
  • Resource 1
  • Resource 2

Profile Information

  • Gender

HM Solomon I's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)

  1. As Oculus Viceroy I humbly accept this surrender and also wish to make one thing abundantly clear: my pancakes are not nearly chocolatey enough, you will be hearing from my lawyers. Congrats on peace everyone! :) o/
  2. The Skyfall War Because the sky is falling on someone. ;)
  3. Except that's not what I'm doing. I'm saying that whatever STA does, this is a distinction without a difference. Whether STA declares on the whole bloc or just one member, they will be at war with the whole bloc by the terms of the treaty. And being at war isn't some thing you can just deny and interpret on your own, you're either at war or not. If someone is at war with you due to their treaty obligations, then whether you want to believe it or not, you're at war. For some reason, there's this notion that Oculus is under an obligation to declare war in response to this attack, but we already did ... by signing the treaty in the first place.
  4. This line of reasoning is simply incorrect, it's a straw man and it holds precisely zero water.
  5. Yes, the Oculus treaty does indeed bind only those who signed it. That's obviously true, but this argument is based on a straw man, that because it only binds the signatories nobody else is even affected by it. The treaty makes it clear that its signatories will automatically counter and provide support against anyone who attacks a signatory, so yes anyone can declare on only one bloc member but Oculus then must counter as a bloc, making any declaration of war on one of the signatories effectively no different than declaring war on the entire bloc. The distinction between those two actions, declaring on one signatory versus declaring on the bloc, is rendered meaningless by this.
  6. Non-chaining clauses, not much else needs to be said in response to this. And there is a CB, several in fact, that you don't agree with them doesn't mean they don't exist.
  7. o/ Doctor Stewie, PhD, has a nice ring to it I'd say. :)
  8. Except the rules specifically allow the one-word meaning of that emoticon. I don't see how specifically prohibiting the emoticon makes sense in that context. I can understand banning other emoticons, but not that one tbh.
  9. What is the rationale behind specifically banning 'o/' but allowing 'Hail' when those are identical in meaning?
  10. Tywin will argue that he doesn't have to acknowledge that because of midi-chlorians or something.
  11. We're doomed. Doomed I say! [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkWIn3GE9Ec[/url]
  • Create New...